i am really not trying to toot my own horn…

But i know this post will seem like it…oh well.

So i have been keeping up with the Wikipedia Deletion Review page about the Everywhere Girl (who i really feel is just a whole other person, sometimes…hehe).

It’s been quite entertaining for my mom and me, and I had decided that I wouldn’t comment on it and just stay out of it, because I honestly don’t care whether I am in Wikipedia or not, especially with all of the bad press they have been getting lately…sorry guys.

But today I was reading some of the stuff and it started to frustrate me a little. I am not going to post anything on that page (mostly because I am too lazy to do all the weird coding), but I will write some stuff here…knowing that it will probably be get to those people anyway….news travels fast around here.

So, I agree with a lot of the people in that I, Jennifer Chandra, should not really be in Wikipedia. I also would understand if The Everywhere Girl didn’t have her own page…maybe it can just be linked to Stock Photos, or The INQ, or The Internet Phenomenon article.
But, I do get frustrated when people on there say stuff that they have not researched.

* First of all, EG is not only on one book cover…she is on five (my mom has them all…like I’ve said before, she is my biggest fan….aawwwww). I can get that info for anyone who wants it, I just don’t have it right now.

* As most of you know, this whole thing started with the whole Dell/Gateway thing. As far as I can tell, The INQ started to see my pictures randomly and sort of started this whole thing by accident. Then I think readers just started sending things in. People have accused The INQ of making the whole thing up and all of this drama. But I can tell you firsthand that I saw my own pictures being used 9 years ago and saw them in many places that weren’t even on the internet. I really am not trying to toot my own horn here, but for some reason, advertisers liked my look. Someone mentioned on the deletion review thing that the other models in my shoot are probably in tons of things too. Well I can tell you that is NOT true. I have spoken with the photographer, Douglas Menuez, and he still makes money every time someone buys my photo off Getty Images. He told me that none of the other people from that shoot have been used anywhere close to the amount I have. I do agree with some people in that at this point, some companies are probably using my picture now because they know the INQ will link to it eventually, increasing their traffic.

* It is very obvious to me that some of these proponents for my the deletion simply have a vendetta against The INQ. At one point, they tried to delete Mike Magee’s article because he wasn’t a “real reporter”. Many people still think the whole thing was created by The INQ as a publicity stunt…NOT TRUE…would you like the original booking from my agent in Portland? Do you want to contact the photographer? How about Getty images so you can see the date the pics were put on there and the usage before The INQ caught wind of it? What do you need as proof?
* It has been said that no other sites have mentioned me. Well I am in the Urban Dictionary now, which people say isn’t a reliable source. It is just as reliable as Wikipedia, that’s for sure, and that’s not saying much. I realize that I probably sound like I hate Wikipedia, but I don’t. I actually use the site a lot, but I know to take some of the stuff on there with a grain of salt. I fact, when I was doing a few research papers this fall, I got a lot of great info from Wikipedia, but I knew I could not cite it as a source, because it is not reliable. But the fact that there are so many random things on there, makes it more of a reason to just keep the stupid EG article on there. It’s no worse than a lot of stuff on there.

* All the deletion promoters keep saying is policy doesn’t allow it….call me crazy, but maybe it’s time to CHANGE the policy? With the way the internet is these days, you cannot expect an encyclopedia site where millions of people can add their own stuff to it, will stay completely legitimate. The people from Wikipedia may need to come to terms with that and spend their time on other important things, like making sure the content is not obscene or whatever. Or maybe making more of a “real” encyclopedia site…or maybe doing something else cool! They are obviously creative enough.

* Someone also said that their have been more articles about EG in The INQ since my identity was revealed…that simply is not true…do some research people. Also it’s funny because some people think that The INQ has abandoned me since my identity was revealed. Well that is simply not true either. People still send in links when they see EG, and The INQ writes about it…..again do some research.

* Someone else mentioned that the deletion of EG hurts the reputation of Wikipedia…I completely agree.

* EG has 97,000 hits on Google. Doesn’t seem trivial to me, as many people say. Also, it was said that there are close to 50 articles on The INQ…but there are actually about 80…not really important, but I just want to correct it.

* Also someone insinuated this about EG being on the cover: “the small photo at the top left of the paper, even if it were real, would be trivial”…come on dude…it’s not like people are faking it.

Anyway, this was really long-winded and I am sure I will get a lot of crap about it, but I feel better getting it out.

Now to all of you who are still reading…have a wonderful weekend!

peace,

jen